Only weeks after Colorado moved aggressively to allow “perinatal” deaths of infants, using a term that could mean abortion before birth or infanticide after birth, California lawmakers are moving forward with the same agenda.
Colorado, which infamously approved abortion before it was legal in the United States, recently adopted a plan that bans punishment for anyone doing something or not doing something that allows the death of a child, either before birth or after.
The Democrat majority in the state lawmaking body was soundly condemned for the obvious fact that its law – now in the final stages of being adopted – would allow someone to simply abandon a baby after birth and let it die – infanticide.
Now Decision Magazine is reporting on California’s AB 2223 changes to the state Health and Safety Code that would do the same.
The new law would read: “A person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or penalty, or otherwise deprived of their rights, based on their actions or omissions with respect to their pregnancy or actual, potential, or alleged pregnancy outcome, including miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion, or perinatal death.”
The report explained, “While the bill doesn’t define the term perinatal, most medical dictionaries classify perinatal death as the demise of a baby from the 20th week of gestation to the 28th day of newborn life. With that in mind, the proposed changes to AB 2223 would effectively make it legal to kill a baby up to a month after birth.”
The Right to Life League was horrified: “AB 2223 literally decriminalizes infanticide.”
The plan comes from Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, a Democrat from Oakland. And it also protects someone who “aids or assists a pregnant person in exercising” what California legislators consider a right to abortion or infanticide. It also allows a woman to sue any police department or legal authority that arrests or charges her for hurting or killing her child, under provisions of the bill, as does the Colorado model, Decision reported.
“For years, pro-life advocates have argued there is no moral difference between ending a child’s life days before birth or days after birth. California’s pro-abortion legislators now seemingly agree,” explained California Family Council chief Jonathan Keller.
“A political culture that justifies killing millions of children in the womb is now declaring open season on unwanted newborns. Every Californian must oppose this heinous bill.”
When Colorado started its advocacy for infanticide, WND reported that state’s pro-abortion history.
It was April 25, 1967, that Colorado took the lead in the race to promote abortion, to make sure that unborn children could be killed at will, by adopting America’s first abortion law.
It wouldn’t be until six years later that the Supreme Court fell into line with the plan promoted at the time by Dick Lamm, then a Democrat legislator and later a governor whose philosophy of life was typified when he told senior citizens, “We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way…”
And James Dobson of Colorado-based James Dobson’s FamilyTalk radio urged residents to contact their representatives and senators about HB22-1279.
He said the Democrats are “on the verge of passing the most radical abortion law in the country.”
“If it goes through, this law will legalize abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy. It will also prohibit requiring abortionists to give notice to parents of minor daughters, and even forbid any statute or regulation limiting abortion rights based on the concern for the health of the woman or the baby.”
Live Action also was raising the issue.
The pro-life organization explained Democrats in the majority in Colorado – and Democratic homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, could “legalize a woman’s right to leave her newborn child to die or allow for the acting ‘doctor’ to take action to kill the child. This has far-reaching, horrific consequences.”
The report continued, “House Bill 22-1279 is known as the ‘Reproductive Health Equity Act,’ but it has nothing to do with health; intentionally killing a preborn child is never medically necessary. As reported by Axios, the bill is a direct response to the pro-life bills that have passed in states like Texas, Mississippi, and Florida, which restrict abortion access to different points in the pregnancy. Mississippi’s law to restrict abortion to prior to 15 weeks is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. When the decision is handed down in June, it could mean that Roe v. Wade is altered, overturned, or left in place.”
Live Action explained, “Though abortion proponents have long mocked the idea of abortion survivors, the reality is that babies do survive abortions. Some are saved by compassionate medical professionals, while others are left to die.”
But lives wouldn’t be saved in Colorado, the report explained, saying, “Colorado’s bill would legalize the deaths of these newborns by both inaction and action. In addition to prohibiting anyone from ‘restricting, interfering with, or discriminating against an individual’s fundamental right […] to have an abortion,’ the bill would prohibit state and local public entities from: Depriving, through prosecution, punishment, or other means, an individual of the individual’s right to act or refrain from acting during the individual’s own pregnancy based on the potential, actual, or perceived impact on the pregnancy, the pregnancy’s outcomes, or on the pregnant individual’s health.”
“In short, this bill could force medical professionals to commit or participate in abortions, and let a newborn baby die if the mother wishes. Of course, a common, natural ‘outcome’ of pregnancy is that a person is born alive. This wouldn’t necessarily affect abortion survivors alone, but could also affect babies born with a disability or genetic condition that had not been discovered during pregnancy. Wrongful birth lawsuits have been filed against doctors who did not accurately diagnose a child while she was still in the womb, and therefore, the parents felt they lost the opportunity to abort their child. This bill could allow those parents to ‘abort’ their child after birth — infanticide.”
Further, the bill specifically denies any rights at all to a “a fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus,” by stating they do “not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of the state.”
“Colorado is in position to deny all rights to an entire group of human beings. The bill also includes a safety clause that states the legislators believe ‘this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety,'” Live Action confirmed.
WND also has reported on plans in Maryland to allow babies to die after they are born.
The concept actually isn’t new. Every few months or years, some extremist brings up the idea of allowing abortion after birth. It’s relatively easy to discard when some loner at a university on the other side of the world discusses a wild-eyed plan.
Or when, as WND has reported, paramedics in one region of Belgium say it would be all right to end the life of a baby born with a “serious” defect.
That’s been a recurring theme, with medical ethicists Francesca Minerva and Alberto Guibilini in 2012 claiming doctors “should be allowed to end the lives of disabled, and even unwanted, newborn babies because they are not ‘actual persons.'”
“If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” he said, alluding to a discussion about whether an infant should be allowed to live or die.
Maryland’s plan states: “This section may not be construed to authorize any form of investigation or penalty for a person . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death related to a failure to act.’ (Emphasis added). In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death, and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.”
The bill also includes a section that would allow “a person [to] bring a cause of action for damages if the person was subject to unlawful arrest or criminal investigation for a violation of this section as a result of . . . experiencing a . . . perinatal death.”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
